From: Michael Bietz <biet0004@tc.umn.edu>
Reply-To: ld-l@world.std.com
To: LD A Listserv <ld-l@world.std.com>
Subject: If I judge you
I should've done this long ago. in addition, i hope that other judges
follow suit as i believe this could be extremely helpful. i think we
tried it once before. however, this was when the listserv was brand new.
so let's try it again, and hope a lot o f you all participate. i plan on
printing out and giving to my debaters, as well as anyone else who asks
how so and so judges. If you could follow a similar format that'd be cool
(well at least put your name and affiliation at the top).
Judging Preferences:
Michael Bietz
Hopkins Debate
I try to be as close to a tabula rasa judge as i can. I keep a VERY
complete flow. Thus i don't miss many arguments/answers. however, this
does not mean i want you to attempt to spread your opponent out with
crappy blip responses without weighing or im pacting.
my newest pet peeve is people that lie. lies include, but are not limited
to:
- saying your opponent something was agreed upon or conceded in CX when it
clearly was not.
- saying your opponent dropped something when it was not.
- making new arguments in rebuttals
- extending arguments that were never made
- extending an argument in 2ar that was dropped in 1ar
- saying your opponent conceded something in c-x even though the question
they may have conceded to is only related to what you're inferring from
it.
THE BOTTOM LINE - DO NOT LIE i know there are judges out there that will
accept it, or are oblivious to it. i am not. do not lie. i will know.
ok about argumentation. if your opponent is pressing you to show links to
the impacts you claim like rights violation, etc, don't just re-assert
your original argument. this is not an argument, it does not answer it.
don't waste your time arguing about "well my opponent doesn't have a card
that says justice is good..." i believe that analysis is much more
persuasive than most evidence. (since most LD evidence d/n have any
analysis).
impact your arguments. if you say "well that means the gov't violates the
social contract..." SO WHAT!! what is the impact of this argument.
don't assume that its bad. esp. in the realm of rights.
don't try to define your opponent out of the round. it makes for bad
debate, and it is abusive. the definition i will accept will be the one
that gives the most ground to both sides, and makes for the best debate.
(write a limits block if you'd like)
don't cross apply all over the place. typically debaters cross-apply
similar reponses to similar arguments. however, similar does not mean
specifically the same. therefore (and this isn't just a pet peeve of mine
but also just poor debating) you are mo st likely not answering specific
analysis.
i try to keep the rounds light. i've judged a lot of stressful rounds.
so if i make a joke or try to have conversation with you, its only b/c i
want you to feel comfortable with me adjudicating the round.
i generally won't disclose unless the debaters ask. and if i do disclose,
and you have questions please ask about them. i won't be offended.
finally, take risks. i mean if you're gonna go for an argument, go for
it. i mean this, of course, must be strategically sound. if you see that
some arguments don't fit into the big issues of the round anymore, tell me
and then go for what you're gonna win. but make sure you weigh.
ok, i think that's ok. at least its better than those cards they hand out
nationals.
m.bietz
hopkins debate
national debate forum
|
